Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Cite as 269 Or App 176 (2015) 179 to conditions. Trautman did not receive notice of the hear- ings official's decision, as required under Eugene Code (EC) 9.7335(1)(d) and ORS 227.173(4).3 Others appealed the hear- ings official's decision to the Eugene Planning Commission. The commission held a public hearing and, on December 16, 2013, issued a final order affirming approval of the PUD with some modifications. Again, the notice of decision was not sent to Trautman, as required by EC 9.7685(1)(d)4 and ORS 227.173(4), nor did Trautman receive notice of the pub- lic hearing. On January 3, 2014, an association of neighbors and several individuals opposed to the development (neighbors) timely filed a notice of intent to appeal (or NITA) the com- mission's final order to LUBA and served copies of the notice pursuant to OAR 661-010-0015(2). OAR 661-010-0015(2) requires that, on or before the date the notice of intent to appeal is required to be filed with the board, it "shall be served on * * * all persons identified in the Notice as required by subsection (3)(f)." Subsection (3)(f), in turn, requires the notice of intent to appeal to identify, among others, "[a]ny other person to whom written notice of the land use decision or limited land use decision was mailed as shown on the gov- erning body's records." OAR 661-010-0015(3)(f)(D) (empha- sis added). Trautman was not included among those served with neighbors' notice of intent to appeal. Subsequently, the city discovered that it had failed to mail the notice of decision to everyone who had partici- pated in the proceedings before the city, and, on February 4, 2014, the city mailed notice of the decision to the remaining people who were entitled to receive it, including Trautman.6 In turn, on February 20, 2014, neighbors provided a certifi- cate of service certifying that they had served a copy of their 3 EC 9.7335(1)(d) provides that notice of a hearings official's decision must be mailed to "[a]ny group or individual who provided written or oral testimony prior to the close of the public comment period." ORS 227.173(4) provides that "[w]ritten notice of the approval or denial [of a permit application] shall be given to all parties to the proceeding." ' EC 9.7685(1)(d) provides that written notice of the planning commission's decision must be mailed to "[a]ny person who provided oral or written testimony in a timely manner during the hearing procedures." e The city mailed the notice to Darian Trautman at 109 Oakleigh Lane, the address provided in Trautman's testimony.